What difference does it make when our primary has no effect on the nomination?

Michael Dukasis brought competence and intellect to the 1988 campaign and got whupped by a man who could not speak a coherent sentence and whose career in public and private life was marked by being put into place by those who held the real power

While I'm not going to be a George Sr. apologist I think you have fallen into the trap of comparing Sr. to being like his son. I don't think they could be further apart. I think Sr. is a very intelligent man and can't remember him stumbling over sentences. I think you also forget about his public and personal resume which I think more than qualified him to be the President. While I disagreed and still disagree strongly with his policies I think you and forgetting the difference between Sr. and Jr.

I think this article puts a bit too much faith in Oregon's mythical "progressive community" as a single entity capable of characterization. And I think the danger here is an implication that speaking in stories will not be effective with Oregon's progressive community - that we need to speak in terms of policy.

The M37 debate serves as a perfect example. The M37 election wasn't about policy - it was about a story. And that story was all about government invading our private property rights. Now that story swayed lots and lots of moderates as evidenced by the poll numbers. I would argue that the tide turned on M37 after the story turned into one about big business looking for a land grab, which is definitely contrary to Oregonians' values.

That example shows that the Oregon's "progressive community" consists of lots and lots of moderates as well as "pinko wonks." And those moderates as well as many other folks in the state can and are swayed by a good story that speaks to their values and belief systems.

In Oregon, our value systems are unique, and we have our own unique mythology and icons. The candidates that best speak to the unique Oregon experience will win the elections.

You're right. Most of the electorate is not operating at a rational conscious level. Research has shown that again and again. Reagan is a case in point. His story of a restoration to a mythical past that never existed, a "shining city on the hill" was a winner. Even though on the issues most of the public disagreed with him, they loved the image and the story he projected.

Maybe Obama can weave such a story. Problem is, that's a story for the general election. For the primary Hillary's story is a restoration to a time of relative peace and stability in a competent Democratic administration, with leadership that is respected. That sells. Edwards has a populist story of the little guy and gal who are downtrodden, taking back Washington from the from the corporate powers and right wing snake oil swindlers. Obama's story in the primary is not selling. He has the greatest potential to transform politics and be a healer to this country. But he needs to convince Democrats that he is a real progressive who can fight and win their cause.

If your analysis were correct, Kucinich would win by a landslide. Dennis is on the right side of most every policy issue.

Obama does have a clear advantage over the other leading contenders, however. Unlike them, he had the good judgement not to support the war at the outset. Unlike them, he was not gullible and had no need to claim that "he wuz misled," or that "he never thought that the President would actually use his authority to use military force."

Unfortunately, Obama seems to be falling into the Democrats' "powerlessness" trap, and he needs to avoid it to be credible. Supposedly Demmocrats need 60-67 votes to stop the President. Increasingly that is getting exposed as a crock. Their "powerlessness" is leading to a widespead feeling of betrayal among voters--witness the Democratic Congress' 14% approval rating.

To win, Obama must show his strength of character and take some more risks on Iraq and Iran. He must avoid the 'gullible weaklings' trap that besets other Democrats. No offense to sheep, but Democrats by and large have painted themselves into a corner where they are perceived as nothing more than a bunch of bleaters.

What is needed to convince an electorate to take a chance on one candidate or party over another is a compelling story.

What the electorate and, especially, Obama and Edwards supporters need to read is Walter Karp's book, "Liberty Under Siege." The first half deals with Jimmy Carter's presidency during which Carter was essentially a president without a party since the oligarchs of the Democratic Party and their cohorts in Congress never accepted him and spent their time undermining and stabbing him in the back. It would be a good bet that if Hillary doesn't get the nomination and Obama or Edwards is elected president, then the DLC and the replacements for the Senate and House leaders who worked Carter over will do the same to whoever is elected. Pelosi may be more attractive than Tip O'Neill, but she has shown she can be as vicious as the Boston bully. Chances are Obama may be less vulnerable than Edwards since he probably has a political machine and a faction of the Democratic party behind him; whereas, Edwards comes up short on political experience and support among the establishment.

This is also a reason I support Steve Novick. He is clearly not a puppet for Chuck Schumer and the DLC and is more likely to represent the people than others favored by the party leadership.

A problem for Obama and Edwards is partly of their own making. Both are splitting the anti-Hillary vote. This may also explain the candidacy of Bill Richardson who has his connections to the DLC. He can also siphon anti-Hillary votes from people who aren't persuaded by Obama and Edwards. Biden and Dodd? They are members of the DLC and are most likely there to be the attack dogs for the party's choice, Hillary, just as Lieberman and Gephardt worked over Howard Dean to beat back his challenge to the then-party candidate, John Kerry.

Chris, if you do your homework you'll see that Obama has as many "repair" plans and policy proposals than anyone. For example, if you look under Cleaning up Washington Culture of Corruption on the above link, you'll see ethics in government proposals that go far beyond what anyone else is proposing.

Chris, if Barack is talking about closing Guantanamo, restoring habeaus corpus, getting out of Iraq, closing the door on lobbyists, opening up the former "secret meetings" of our government, combatting global warming, providing health insurance to everyone, etc., would you call those repair meausures?

And I guess I'll have to disagree with Todd somewhat. Yes you are right that Barack has the best story as he embodies the American dream. But don't sell his policies short as I find them better than the others in many instances.

And the big big big big difference is that Barack is able to articulate those policies and communicate them effectively to the American people. When I listened to him in a town hall event, I was amazed by his "wonkishness" and his command of the details on the issues. By contrast, I personally find Edwards difficult to understand when he's explaining the issues though many of his ideas look very good "on paper."

We need a repairer, and somebody who will be willing to work with the other branches of government to restore the proper balance. Someone willing to give up power illegitimately seized for her or his office.

The only way the balance of power gets restored is when Congress grows a pair and demands it. No president, no matter who they are, is going to voluntarily give it up. Congress has the power to do this now, they are just choosing not to play hard ball because of the political implications. Our entire checks and balances system is based on the idea that each branch will seek power for themselves, and thus check the other branch. The only reason Bush has gotten away with everything is that the Republican Congress (out of party loyalty) and now the Democratic Congress (out of fear of accountability) aren't demanding the power back.

Chris, you want evidence of Obama being a "confronter" and not just a feel good guy? Well I won't try to post the links as I keep screwing that up (sorry folks) but Senator Obama seems to be doing more confronting than anyone.

Today he spoke to a large group of executives on Wall Street. Did he try to suck up to them? No, he basically lectured them about what they are doing wrong, here's a snidbit:

 NEW YORK (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told Wall Street investors Monday that several of them have been too focused on their own gain at the expense of struggling Americans and echoed Franklin Delano Roosevelt's call for a "reappraisal of values."

Obama prides himself on delivering tough messages directly to the source, and his address at the NASDAQ Marketsite was another example. He said a "what's good for me is good enough" mentality has crept into parts of the business world while working men and women toil longer hours and still struggle to pay for health care, tuition and taxes.

"If we are honest, I think we must admit that those who have benefited from the new global marketplace - and that includes almost everyone in this room - have not always concerned themselves with the losers in this new economy," the Illinois senator said.

"The danger with this mentality isn't just that it offends our morals, it's that it endangers our markets," Obama said...

"I am asking you to join me in ushering in a new era of mutual responsibility in America," he said. He said he believes Wall Street leaders want to be part of building a more just nation, but they haven't been asked before.

<hr/>

This is nothing new for Obama. A few months ago he got up in front of the automakers in Detroit and lectured them on how they need to do better with their fuel efficiency standards, here's a snidbit of the May 7th speech confronting them:

"It starts with our cars - because if we truly hope to end the tyranny of oil, the nation must once again turn to Detroit for another great transformation.

"I know these are difficult times for automakers, and I know that not all of the industry's problems are of its own making.

"But we have to be honest about how we arrived at this point.

"For years, while foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology for their vehicles, American automakers were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars. And whenever an attempt was made to raise our fuel efficiency standards, the auto companies would lobby furiously against it, spending millions to prevent the very reform that could've saved their industry. Even as they've shed thousands of jobs and billions in profits over the last few years, they've continued to reward failure with lucrative bonuses for CEOs.

"The consequences of these choices are now clear. While our fuel standards haven't moved from 27.5 miles per gallon in two decades, both China and Japan have surpassed us, with Japanese cars now getting an average of 45 miles to the gallon. And as the global demand for fuel-efficient and hybrid cars have skyrocketed, it's foreign competitors who are filling the orders. Just the other week, we learned that for the first time since 1931, Toyota has surpassed General Motors as the world's best-selling automaker.

"At the dawn of the Internet Age, it was famously said that there are two kinds of businesses - those that use email and those that will. Today, there are two kinds of car companies - those that mass produce fuel-efficient cars and those that will.

"The American auto industry can no longer afford to be one of those that will. What's more, America can't afford it. When the auto industry accounts for one in ten American jobs, we all have a stake in saving those jobs. When our economy, our security, and the safety of our planet depend on our ability to make cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars, every American has a responsibility to make sure that happens.

"Automakers still refuse to make the transition to fuel-efficient production because they say it's too expensive at a time when they're losing profits and struggling under the weight of massive health care costs.

"This time, they're actually right. The auto industry's refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out.

"But expensive is no longer an excuse for inaction. The auto industry is on a path that is unacceptable and unsustainable - for their business, for their workers, and for America. And America must take action to make it right."

<hr/>

And did I tell you about his father's day speech in South Carolina? He was speaking to a crowd that included a lot of folks from broken families. Did he kiss up to them? No, he confronted them too and lectured the men in the audience on the responsibilities of fatherhood which he told them don't end upon conception, that you don't prove your manhood by siring a child, that you prove it by being a father.

So can Senator Obama confront people? You betcha, he's been doing at all along. You can read these speeches and watch the videos on barackobama.com or youtube.

A very complicated issue, since you're citing ethology as a premise for the appeal of political dogmatism. However, the greater question is why does the electorate need the good story and reject policy discourse? The Republican side, in my opinion, has always been one that believes in a ruling class and the story is fronted so that policy initiatives that wouldn't necessarily appeal to the masses can be pursued. Speaking as a progressive, I believe that even though people are born into this world with different advantages and disadvantages (in personality, intellect, physical attributes, financial opportunity, etc), all men are basically created equal and should have the chance to participate in a democratic, constitutional system. This is basically the same philosophy that is outlined in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

So by yeilding to the competition to sell the voters a better story than the other party, you change the emphasis from informing on policy to playing the political game. Whatever short term advantage there is, the nation moves further away from the principals upon which it was founded and the issues are increasingly framed by the competing stories instead of the hard facts upon which optimal policy decisions must be made.

We see this problem taking place with Iraq right now. Both parties have taken to arguing over when the Iraqis are going to stand up and take responsibility for themselves, and the debate is one of whether or not American military presence helps or hinders the abilities of the Iraqis to do that. The politically acceptable stories have completely replaced the facts--that the Shiite-Sunni conflict is centuries old, they didn't ask us to bomb them into democracy in the first place, and the only solid plans the Western establishment had were to secure and privatize the oil fields after the invasion.

If you take the high road and say the masses need the appealing story to vote on and then once we, believing ourselves to be benevolent lefties, get into power we will do the right things by them, then we become the ruling class that is anathema to our Constitutional principals. I think what is needed is a candidate unlike any the Democrats have--somebody with the oratory skills of a Mario Cuomo in his prime who can communicate policy in a way that invokes passion and that people can personally relate to. I don't think Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, etc have that leadership ability.

The Republican side, in my opinion, has always been one that believes in a ruling class ...

So, too, do the leaders of the Democratic party who have essentially ignored the people who want an end to the war on Iraq and impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

So, too, do what's left of the old guard tradition of union bosses.

So, too, do the people who believe anything and everything that their parties' (Republican and Democratic) leaders say.

So, too, do the masses that take as gospel whatever comes out of the mouths of the Limbaughs, O'Reillys, Falwells, Coulters and other demagogues.

I live in California and I too ,look at policies! Help us get John elected in California!! Join One Corps- Sonoma for Edwards and send me an e-mail!

That Matthew Sutton is an arse!!

I agree that Edwards would likely be a better president than either of the front-runners (and I like Kucinich best of all). But I can't get excited about the Dem primary for one simple reason: Clinton IS going to win. I just hope she's way ahead of the Republican in November so I won't have to actually vote for her.

If the current math holds, Hillary will not have the votes to win the Primary early, in most states she polls at right around 30%, that's not enough. So, Oregon's Primary could easily be a big deal, it's not nearly as iffy as posited.

There's something about Obama I don't like - his view about war. Same with Hillary. Both will get us into a war with Iran and sustain the funneling of large amounts of money to the military industrial complex. I think Mike Gravel is right. Many of the Dem candidates are scary.

I am very wary of Hillary becoming the nominee. I chair a Central Committee here in Oregon and I fear greatly the possibility that Hillary will get the nomination. If she does, I will be at odds with the state and national Democratic Party. My personal support of Hillary will likely be near zero, and I will focus my efforts on the local, state and U.S. Senate races -- which are very important to me.

There is absolutely no doubt that Hillary will be far better than any of the Republican nominees. However, I will find myself in the same position as in 2004 -- I supported John Kerry because he was the lesser of two evils. Hillary represents corporations and she represents war. I don't like either. I will end up gagging trying to promote Hillary, so I think it will be best for me to just simply avoid speaking her name if she is the nominee. I prefer some of the other candidates -- Edwards or Kucinich -- but I will not be advertising my preferences among my fellow Dems because of my leadership position. I just have to wait it out and hope for the best.

Between Obama and Clinton, I prefer Obama, and I may feel more comfortable promoting his candidacy if he wins the nomination, but, as before, it will end up becoming a situation of choosing between the lesser of two evils. That's not how I like my choices to be.

What difference does it make when our primary has no effect on the nomination?

I think this is one reason i'm not as excited as many about the presidential race. The Party will have chosen the nominee long before Oregon goes through its emotions and i fully expect the state to tilt blue in the General.

<h2>Obama has a NATIONAL problem, and that is that he has been stuck at 20% since he annnounced. Actually he climbed to 30% briefly, but fell back after the debates strated. I saw Obama in PDX two weeks ago and thought that this speech was good, but nothing like the expectations that I had based on the adolation of his fans. Unlike Edwards, Obama doesn't seem to ahve a clear message, other than "we need change." Aside from his big bank account, Obama seems to be going nowhere.</h2>